Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Nothing to worry about...

If I say the words: The Anarchist Cookbook, you automatically know what I mean. TAC is one of the biggest urban legends out there. If you had the opportunity, you'd give it a read, just out of morbid curiosity. I'm about as anti-nazi as you can get, but I still read Mein Kampf, just because it's an iconically controversial book. The same could be said about: The communist manifesto, Catcher in the rye, Serial killer biographies, Lolita, Behind the Mask, and the Bible and the Q'ran. Many more to list, but you get the point.

Maybe those aren't books you'd keep open on the shelves, maybe keep them in a draw or something, but the fact that they have so much controversy surrounding them, it makes you want to read them. Kinda how the warning at the beginning of an episode of Jackass makes you (or me at least) want to do the stunts even more.

Last summer, on a complete whim I typed in Anarchist Cookbook into ebay and found a guy selling pdf copies on CD. They were going for 99p and at that price, I thought "F**k it, might as well". If its on ebay, then it can't be too illegal. It came and I gave it a read through. Really stupid book. It's obvious the author never made anything inside because he'd be dead year before he did. But I'm glad I had the chance to read it.

I walked down stairs this morning to put on a pot of coffee and saw a card on the floor from the police telling me to contact them. It said: "Please contact DC Hooks ASAP. Nothing to worry about". I've just had a conversation with a police intelligence officer. Asking about my motivation to buy the book and if I'm affiliated with any political groups.

@Sagat, I would venture to consider that the police were probably more interested in the seller than you....It's more likely they were following up business from his end, rather than yours.He may have been on their books for a while, and they're watching his activity...

@pyramidsong, it's all very well lamenting the state of things, but as matters stand at the moment, I'd rather have a slightly stronger arm of the law, than the social unrest we have at present.The recent riots in major towns in the UK, which hid behind the banner of 'political agenda', but were actually nothing more than a general excuse for robbing, looting and destroying, would indicate that some more heavy-handedness wouldn't go amiss, in some sectors.

Yes, but federica, where to draw the line? Increasingly tighten general civil liberties because of what a few *might* do? I think we have more to fear from governments than from any terrorist groups. And these increasingly draconian laws (NDAA and Patriot Act, SOPA, PIPA) are a threat to everyone. Surveillance is everywhere, the US is putting TSA checkpoints at highways now, there's talk of microchips and anyone with an unpopular view can be viewed as a terrorist. Tightening laws over people growing their own fruit and vegetables... Need I go on? This is *not* democracy. Now, I'm not really into the whole Occupy thing and I'm certainly no advocate for rioting and looting and I do think people who do those things should face prosecution. The system is corrupt and is only getting more so. We're like the frog in the pot that doesn't notice the water's boiling.

0

federicaseeker of the clear blue skyIts better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator

Yep. I'd say we need our Buddhist practise more than ever. It would be wonderful if society could take the middle way- somewhere in between the materialism dictatorship and paranoia of those of us who see through it. I've kinda cottoned on that being paranoid and outraged (though tempting) won't change the status quo so the best we can do is change our inner landscapes with metta, yes?

...Increasingly tighten general civil liberties because of what a few *might* do? I think we have more to fear from governments than from any terrorist groups. And these increasingly draconian laws (NDAA and Patriot Act, SOPA, PIPA) are a threat to everyone. Surveillance is everywhere, the US is putting TSA checkpoints at highways now, there's talk of microchips and anyone with an unpopular view can be viewed as a terrorist. Tightening laws over people growing their own fruit and vegetables... Need I go on? This is *not* democracy. Now, I'm not really into the whole Occupy thing and I'm certainly no advocate for rioting and looting and I do think people who do those things should face prosecution. The system is corrupt and is only getting more so. We're like the frog in the pot that doesn't notice the water's boiling.

This is such an overblown post as compared to what is actually going on.

I live here, too, and I haven't had a single one of my civil liberties affected, except perhaps when flying...and I find what happens when flying unpleasant, but reasonable considering the consequences of going back the way it was.

NDAA -- this act has been around for the last 50 years. Care to be specific?Patriot Act -- definitely some excesses here.SOPA -- is not a law at this point. While I'd just as soon not see it pass, it's primarily about protecting intellectual copyrights and counterfeit goods. Are you upset about because it might affect you getting free music or videos?PIPA -- also not law at this point. Also, how will it affect you if you are conducting yourself legally?

Surveillance is everywhere -- first, an exaggeration. Second, surveillance is generally in public places where there are security and/or potential crime locations. What's the problem?

TSA checkpoints on highways -- please be specific.

Talk of microchips -- please be specific.

Anyone with an unpopular view can be viewed as a terrorist -- gross exaggeration.

Tightening laws over people growing their own fruit and vegetables -- again, please be specific.

Not a democracy? Who passed all those laws you mention (some of which have not been passed)? People we voted into office.

NDAA. Yes, it has existed for 5O years. But the NDAA For Fiscal Year 2012:

"The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[9] and Senate sponsors[10] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[11][12] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.[13][14][15][16][17]"

No, I don't file share and download at all, and certainly not illegally. But if you truly believe SOPA and PIPA are for that and that alone, then it sounds like you are a person who takes the government at their word, and with that I can't help you. I am not a person who takes government statements at face value.

The fruit and vegetable one I will get back to, I need to find a better source. But I will suggest you Google Codex Alimentarius. Some interesting reading on that subject...

"Anyone with an unpopular view can be viewed as a terrorist -- gross exaggeration."

Under the Patriot Act, I disagree. There have been situations where people who are (non-violent) animal rights activists or anti-Bush campaigners have been visited by the FBI. Now, I have no citeable sources for that at this point so you are free to dismiss that as hearsay. That's up to you.

For surveillance, again we will have to agree to disagree. Despite the fact I am a good citizen, yes, I do have a problem with the level of surveillance in today's society. It surprises me that people don't.

As for voting into office, well... If you truly believe the partisan democratic process is real, legitimate and operates as they say it does and that your vote actually matters, then we are coming from vastly different worldviews and must agree to disagree.

I love seeing what people have on their shelves. I majored in sociology and have a HUGE collection of books related to racism, as that was a major theme of study for me. People who didn't know me would probably assume I was a neo-Nazi. My parents always joke that I'm probably on a list somewhere..m

The response from our governing bodies is always to curb the civil liberties of the majority in order to 'protect' from the minority.

Statistically speaking, you're more likely to die from choking on a peanut than you are from a terrorist attack - though terrorism is horrific, the actual risk to life is negligible... despite this, governments seem to wish to undertake every possible solution other than actually looking at the root of the problem and at least acknowledging that (not doing anything about it - just saying it could be caused by X so lets talk about it more)...

Sadly, those who have opportunity to take, do so and everything else seems to be juggled to justify the pay day.

I know very little about Tibetan history - the sources I have read paint a picture of a utopian society of ideals... is this true? or were they also corrupt?

Thank you, Zero, just what I was trying to say. We live in a society where if you question the status quo and don't believe the official line, you're dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Just because something seems far-fetched doesn't mean it isn't true... People don't need to agree but research and critical thinking don't go astray.

@pyramidsong; No, I don't believe everything the government tells me, nor do I believe everything the websites that you visit tell me. The truth is something in between.

I live in Colorado, and perhaps you are aware of the cantaloupe crisis here this past summer. We have a bunch of farmers who are very upset that they may face more government regulation because they didn't use rather simple procedures to protect their cantaloupes from listeria that killed a number of people and sickened many more. And many of these farmers were falsely labeling their cantaloupes as being from an area known as Rocky Ford, when they weren't.

Several years ago, I was vacationing in Thailand when there was quite a scandal. Some farmers were using cyanide on their strawberry crops to control insects. And yes, people were buying those strawberries. Now that's a country that has little produce protection and relies on the goodness of the angelic farmers to be honest and do what's best for the people who buy their products.

And then people wonder why we have to regulate agricultural products.

Most of the laws we have in the U.S. are a direct result of something which has happened which is negative. Sometimes it is overdone. No doubt about that. And every individual human behaves the same way. The parent who doesn't let a daughter date at all because once she stayed out a half-hour past curfew. The teacher who lobbies for a school-wide rule against gum chewing because she put her hand on a piece of gum under the top of a student desk. The principal who institutes a strict dress code because a couple of girls wore short skirts. It's just a question of degree.

How is it possible to deny the statement "surveillance is everywhere"? How would anyone know? The standard m.o. of gov't surveillance usually is to do it under the raidar. Logically, this statement can be neither confirmed nor denied. But I suspect that @pyramidsong has in mind gov't phone and internet surveillance as part of counterterrorism strategy.

It used to be unthinkable that the gov't would surveil its own citizens. That was something Eastern Bloc countries did, not the land of the free and the home of the brave. COINTELPRO in the 60's was a scandal because it crossed a major line, at least in the public perception. Gov't surveillance got a President impeached. Now it's ho-hum. That in itself is astonishing and worrisome.

Take Facebook, for example. Good way for governments to find out exactly where your political affiliations lie. We're all so careless with our opinions on there. Myself included. Look what happened in Egypt.

@pyramidsong How can anyone think you're paranoid for believing the government when it announced it was initiating phone surveillance of citizens? That was an acknowledged part of the fight against terrorism, it's not a conspiracy theory.

But here's the issue. For each of you that are so concerned about government regulation, etc., there's someone else who is all for it.

I have an adopted son who is Pakistani, and moved back to Pakistan to live as an adult. One time he wanted me to send him some money. I refused. Wanna guess why? He calls me about once a month, and I imagine I'm on some list somewhere, receiving all those calls from Pakistan. That's okay with me, because there are others with connections in Pakistan who may be making other kinds of communications and sending money back and forth for other reasons.

This thread isn't about government regulation, that was another thread. This one's about surveillance, which it sounds like you acknowledge is taking place.

I imagine I'm on some list somewhere, receiving all those calls from Pakistan. That's okay with me, because there are others with connections in Pakistan who may be making other kinds of communications and sending money back and forth for other reasons.

@Sagat What was in the cookbook? Bomb recipes? Why is the intelligence svce. worried about a cookbook, unless maybe the author is known to them for illicit activities, like Fed suggested.

At least we still have the freedom to obtain this material, but to be honest, I feel better that there are flags in place to identify people showing an interest in bomb building knowledge.

Should ordering materials online be considered private communications? or as activities without an expectation of privacy, such as shopping for bomb making supplies at your local hardware store? Although I lean towards public safety, I understand the privacy concerns as well.

I agree that making bomb recipes public is a concern. I'm not sure how freedom of speech fits in with that. That's where fighting terrorism gets tricky in the public mind. Slowly, rights get compromised or eroded. But I still don't know what was in that cookbook. Maybe like Fed says, it was the vendor who was flagged, not the book itself.

This is such an overblown post as compared to what is actually going on.

I live here, too, and I haven't had a single one of my civil liberties affected,

Are you a civil rights activist or some other kind of political activist stirring up trouble? If not, yes they generally don't bother people like yourself because you are not seen as a threat. You are being a good compliant citizen. People like martin Luther king on the other hand, his FBI file is a mile long.

NDAA -- this act has been around for the last 50 years. Care to be specific?

Never before has the suspension of habeas corpus for US citizens on us soil been codified into US law.

SOPA -- is not a law at this point. While I'd just as soon not see it pass, it's primarily about protecting intellectual copyrights and counterfeit goods. Are you upset about because it might affect you getting free music or videos?PIPA -- also not law at this point. Also, how will it affect you if you are conducting yourself legally?

Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University professor of constitutional law, released an open letter on the web stating that SOPA would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.

Surveillance is everywhere -- first, an exaggeration. Second, surveillance is generally in public places where there are security and/or potential crime locations. What's the problem?

Law enforcement agencies across America continue to monitor and harass groups and individuals for doing little more than peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

A thorough search and review of news accounts by the ACLU reveals that these law enforcement behaviors have taken place in at least 36 states plus the District of Columbia in recent years. Americans have been put under surveillance or harassed by the police just for deciding to organize, march, protest, espouse unusual viewpoints, and engage in normal, innocuous behaviors such as writing notes or taking photographs in public.

This is such an overblown post as compared to what is actually going on.

I live here, too, and I haven't had a single one of my civil liberties affected,

Are you a civil rights activist or some other kind of political activist stirring up trouble? If not, yes they generally don't bother people like yourself because you are not seen as a threat. You are being a good compliant citizen. People like martin Luther king on the other hand, his FBI file is a mile long.

NDAA -- this act has been around for the last 50 years. Care to be specific?

Never before has the suspension of habeas corpus for US citizens on us soil been codified into US law.

SOPA -- is not a law at this point. While I'd just as soon not see it pass, it's primarily about protecting intellectual copyrights and counterfeit goods. Are you upset about because it might affect you getting free music or videos?PIPA -- also not law at this point. Also, how will it affect you if you are conducting yourself legally?

Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University professor of constitutional law, released an open letter on the web stating that SOPA would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.

Surveillance is everywhere -- first, an exaggeration. Second, surveillance is generally in public places where there are security and/or potential crime locations. What's the problem?

Law enforcement agencies across America continue to monitor and harass groups and individuals for doing little more than peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

A thorough search and review of news accounts by the ACLU reveals that these law enforcement behaviors have taken place in at least 36 states plus the District of Columbia in recent years. Americans have been put under surveillance or harassed by the police just for deciding to organize, march, protest, espouse unusual viewpoints, and engage in normal, innocuous behaviors such as writing notes or taking photographs in public.

Some people think programs like "COINTELPRO" just don't happen anymore. I think that is naive to conclude since the FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception. There is no reason for them to stop now.

According to a report by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Justice, activists affiliated with Greenpeace were improperly put on a terrorist watch list, even though they were planning no violence or illegal activities. The IG report found the "troubling" FBI practices between 2001 and 2006. In some cases, the FBI conducted investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for "factually weak" reasons. Also, the FBI extended investigations of some of the groups "without adequate basis" and improperly kept information about activist groups in its files. At least two of the investigations resulted in innocent people being placed on the domestic terror watch list for years, and one resulted in FBI Director Robert Mueller providing Congress with "inaccurate and misleading information," according to the report. In addition to Greenpeace and PETA, the FBI targeted the Thomas Merton Center, a Pittsburgh anti-war organization, the Catholic Worker, another anti-war group, and an individual Quaker peace activist, according to the report.

Sure, if you're an average joe just going back and fourth to work a regular job, they have no reason to bother you since you really aren't exercising any rights that they don't like. However, if you become a national anti-war activist, that is another story.

Martin Luther King accomplished some of his goals in spite of the system, not because of it. Protesters were attacked by dogs and fire hoses in spite of marching peacefully. And let's not forget that his activism cost him his life. He was spied on by J. Edgar Hoover. The Civil Rights Movement early on was accused of being lead by Communists. This is a strange example to use to support an argument that there is no surveillance or intimidation, and that there is freedom of speech. Perhaps I misunderstood the point.

Martin Luther King accomplished some of his goals in spite of the system, not because of it. Protesters were attacked by dogs and fire hoses in spite of marching peacefully. And let's not forget that his activism cost him his life. He was spied on by J. Edgar Hoover. The Civil Rights Movement early on was accused of being lead by Communists. This is a strange example to use to support an argument that there is no surveillance or intimidation, and that there is freedom of speech. Perhaps I misunderstood the point.

You didn't need a warrant to wire tap back then, as you do now.

Kennedy and Johnson authorized the FBI to wiretap MLK, and he was tapped until 1966... it wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled that wire tapping required a warrant, then Congress pass a law for acquiring warrants in 1968.

Martin Luther King accomplished some of his goals in spite of the system, not because of it. Protesters were attacked by dogs and fire hoses in spite of marching peacefully. And let's not forget that his activism cost him his life. He was spied on by J. Edgar Hoover. The Civil Rights Movement early on was accused of being lead by Communists. This is a strange example to use to support an argument that there is no surveillance or intimidation, and that there is freedom of speech. Perhaps I misunderstood the point.

Yeah...I was alive...I remember it.

My point is this: The "left" is always fighting for more rights and freedoms and entitlements. And I'm glad they do. The "right" is always fighting to restrict rights and freedoms and entitlements. And I'm glad they do. I'm glad there are those opposing forces, each of which keeps the other in check, and all of which keeps the system in somewhat of a balance.

I idolize FDR. But 3+ terms of him was enough. It was time for some balance. Time for the pendulum to swing.

I may be a middle of the road Democrat, but I don't want the Democrats to win all the political contests. I want the balance there, because that's how America works best.

My point about MLK was that you can put all that repression up, and American freedoms still work. He may have been put in jail repeatedly, but he still spoke out, still led the marches, still inspired people. Freedom may get bruised a little now and then, but it survives and, in my view, ultimately flourishes.

Martin Luther King accomplished some of his goals in spite of the system, not because of it. Protesters were attacked by dogs and fire hoses in spite of marching peacefully. And let's not forget that his activism cost him his life. He was spied on by J. Edgar Hoover. The Civil Rights Movement early on was accused of being lead by Communists. This is a strange example to use to support an argument that there is no surveillance or intimidation, and that there is freedom of speech. Perhaps I misunderstood the point.

You didn't need a warrant to wire tap back then, as you do now.

Kennedy and Johnson authorized the FBI to wiretap MLK, and he was tapped until 1966... it wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled that wire tapping required a warrant, then Congress pass a law for acquiring warrants in 1968.

My point about MLK was that you can put all that repression up, and American freedoms still work. He may have been put in jail repeatedly, but he still spoke out, still led the marches, still inspired people. Freedom may get bruised a little now and then, but it survives and, in my view, ultimately flourishes.

Yay! I love a happy ending. We can keep our fingers crossed, but in the meantime, maybe it's important that people are demonstrating. Rights need to be defended.

but in the meantime, maybe it's important that people are demonstrating. Rights need to be defended.

Which is what I just finished saying.

And in terms of FDR...you say "where is he when you need him?" You mean like when he imprisoned all the West Coast Japanese in concentration camps? Or when he tried to circumvent the Supreme Court? The liberals go too far, too. That's why there always needs to be a balance. And just like life is not black or white, justice is always a bit imperfect, but always evolving.

And in terms of FDR...you say "where is he when you need him?" You mean like when he imprisoned all the West Coast Japanese in concentration camps? Or when he tried to circumvent the Supreme Court?

This is the guy you just said you idolized?

Wow, vinlyn, you make it really hard for someone to agree with you.

See, you just don't get it. Everything is not black and white. It is an extremely rare person who is all good or all bad. And that's why I keep talking about various forces in our democracy providing balance. FDR was responsible, more than any other one American leader, for winning WWII. He was more responsible than any other one American leader for leading us out of the Great Depression. But, like virtually every other man who ever walked this planet, he was not perfect, and he needed forces to balance what he did.

It happens in politics every once in a while.1964 -- Republican nominate Barry Goldwater.1968 -- Democrats nominate George McGovern.Thank goodness neither of them became president. That's not to say that each didn't have some good qualities...both did...but one was too conservative and the other too liberal to "fit" as President...and the voters proved it.

Agree vin...middle way towards generosity and magnamity is vital for wellness in uk and usa. both countries have what it initial were from love to redevelop trust and mutual love. It was hatred and over emphasis on terror / war that leads to fear and suspicious. in long term, it will generate the atmospheric condition of racial disharminy and tension that leads to the door into lower realms unknowingly, thats extremely pathetic. may they be well, be safe and be love

My point is this: The "left" is always fighting for more rights and freedoms and entitlements. And I'm glad they do. The "right" is always fighting to restrict rights and freedoms and entitlements.

I would not go so far as to say that. There are plenty on the left restricting rights and plenty on the right fighting for them.

That may be true. I'll have to think more about it. So maybe I should restate by saying that there are always people striving on both sides of such issues.

Seeker, earlier you made some references about the ACLU. When I was young I made a few contributions to the ACLU, but then I began to learn more about some of the causes that they defended, and my respect for them simply fell apart. There is such a thing as choosing your battles, but I don't respect an organization that stood up for Governor George Wallace, the KKK, Nazis, Rush Limbaugh, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

Seeker, earlier you made some references about the ACLU. When I was young I made a few contributions to the ACLU, but then I began to learn more about some of the causes that they defended, and my respect for them simply fell apart. There is such a thing as choosing your battles, but I don't respect an organization that stood up for Governor George Wallace, the KKK, Nazis, Rush Limbaugh, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

IMO, free speech is free speech regardless if you like the people or not.

Seeker, earlier you made some references about the ACLU. When I was young I made a few contributions to the ACLU, but then I began to learn more about some of the causes that they defended, and my respect for them simply fell apart. There is such a thing as choosing your battles, but I don't respect an organization that stood up for Governor George Wallace, the KKK, Nazis, Rush Limbaugh, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

IMO, free speech is free speech regardless if you like the people or not.

I agree. But that didn't mean I wanted my contributions supporting those people/groups.